Introduction Fathers play a unique role in keeping children safe from injury yet understanding of their views and attitudes towards protecting children from injury and allowing them to engage in risks is limited. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to measure fathers’ attitudes towards these two constructs.
Methods and findings An instrument was developed that used prior qualitative research to inform item generation. The questions were assessed for content validity with experts, then pilot-tested with fathers. The survey was completed by 302 fathers attending hospital with their child for an injury or non-injury reason. Results of confirmatory factor analysis identified eight items relating to the protection from injury factor and six items relating to the risk engagement factor. Correlation between the two factors was low, suggesting these are two independent constructs.
Conclusions The Risk Engagement and Protection Survey offers a tool for measuring attitudes and assisting with intervention strategy development in ways that reflect fathers’ views and promotes a balanced view of children’s needs for safety with their needs for engaging in active, healthy risk-taking.
- psychometric properties
- scale development
- sports/leisure facility
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors LLO, MB and TI developed the concept of the study with assistance from LCM. Survey questions were developed and revised by TI with contributions from LLO and MB. Cognitive interviews were conducted by TI. Data collection and entry was carried out and overseen by GC. Data analysis was carried out by LCM, TI and LLO. LLO, TI and LCM drafted the first version of the paper. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data. All five authors have undertaken a critical review of the manuscript and have approved this final version for publication.
Funding This study was funded by the British Columbia Children’s Hospital Foundation. MB and LCM received salary support from the BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval UBC Children’s & Women’s Research Ethics Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.